Cysis 2 DX11 and Sandbox Update

limitedaccess said:
The current Nvidia cards have stronger tessellation performance and geometry shader performance. AMDs have better pixel shader performance. If you run (or look at) synthetic benchmarks which test these types of scenarios it shows this. You see this in very heavy tessellation and/or displacement mapping oriented benchmarks, such as HAWX2 and Unigine Heaven as well. This is actually why the current AMD cards are much more efficient in most actual games however, since they are usually more reliant on pixel shader performance.

So AMD current design makes sense. Whereas Nvidia, ironically, did a 3dfx. (I have both companies cards currently, and my current main card is a Nvidia just as disclaimer)
Click to expand...

Because NVIDIA is better at DX11, they did a 3dfx ? Such a ridiculous thing to say...

As for which architecture makes sense, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but AMD itself recently said that their next architecture would be scalar (just like NVIDIA's have been, ditching VLIW) and will also introduce many things that NVIDIA already placed in Fermi.

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21141
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Yeah you did which makes your point make absolutely no sense what so ever.

You're damning an entire group of people who have maybe one point of commonality when their collective opinions are contradictory in nature. One position does not necessarily imply another, so people in the group are naturally going to contradict each other on certain points.
Click to expand...

Only to you. It's a pretty clear point. People criticizing any game for the lack of support for a certain graphics API is an idiot, because quite simply a GAME is not about a GRAPHICS API.

PrincessFrosty said:
What except for the fact that DX11 is more efficient and faster than it's predecessors.

The fact that Crytek boasted the best graphics ever yet are missing new technology that other games have had for over a year which is enabled through use of DX11
Click to expand...

Name me games already in the market that looked better than Crysis 2, when it was released (DX9 only).

Also, where are the multitude of threads for the lack of DX11 in Portal 2 ? Or Brink ? Or any game out after the first game launched with DX11 support ?
That's right, there isn't any. Why ? Because not only that doesn't make ANY sense, but also people just love to hate Crytek for whatever they do, if the Crysis 1 debacle wasn't already a good example of that.

PrincessFrosty said:
Then call out that person on their hypocrisy, I'm not very happy seeing every person who dislikes the fact that Crysis 2 didn't launch with DX11 effects getting lumped into some group of irrational haters when some of us have perfectly good reasons to dislike the game.
Click to expand...

LOL, 40-50 pages of people whining about the lack of DX11 support as their ONLY reason to not buy the game and I would call them all on their hypocrisy ? Yeah right....
PrincessFrosty said:
My choice is based on their actions, because their actions decide the quality of the game and the quality of the game affects my decision to buy or not.
Click to expand...

Sure, but having (or not) DX11 support clearly does not decide the quality of any game. Or will you disagree in even this very simple point ?
Is Metro 2033 a better game because it has DX11 support ? is Dirt 2 a better game because it has DX11 support ? Is Portal 2 a bad game because it lacks DX11 support ?

I'm sure you know the answer to all of these and it has only two letters.
 
I purchased Crysis 2 today because of the DX11 support and hi res texture pack, also because I was able to get it at Best Buy for 30 dollars. I'm a few hours into the game and so far I do not regret the purchase. It's a good looking game with decent gameplay. I wouldn't have titled it Crysis 2 though. It has some elements of the original, but they have diverged to far away from the formula to be considered a true sequel for me. It's feels like Crysis trapped in a box, but there is some fun to be had playing Crysis "2."

As is, I'm still waiting for Crytek to release the next Far Cry.
 
Silus said:
Only to you. It's a pretty clear point. People criticizing any game for the lack of support for a certain graphics API is an idiot, because quite simply a GAME is not about a GRAPHICS API.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that for crying out loud. They're saying their expectations based on what Crytek have done in the past and based on the information they made public lead them to believe that the game would graphically be superior to everything else (see Yerli's quotes a few pages back) In a market which is already adopting DX11 effects like Tessellation in Metro 2033 having DX11 support is a requirement in order to meet claims of being the best looking game out there.

Name me games already in the market that looked better than Crysis 2, when it was released (DX9 only).
Click to expand...

Metro 2033, very accurate dynamic lighting, tessellation enhancing character models, this game looks better than Crysis 2 did in DX9 and it was released over a year ago. Hell in a lot of regards the original Crysis is better than Crysis 2, destruction, physics, texture detail.

Also, where are the multitude of threads for the lack of DX11 in Portal 2 ? Or Brink ? Or any game out after the first game launched with DX11 support ?
Click to expand...

These games don't have (to my knowledge) statements released by developers claiming graphical superiority like Crytek did.

That's right, there isn't any. Why ? Because not only that doesn't make ANY sense, but also people just love to hate Crytek for whatever they do, if the Crysis 1 debacle wasn't already a good example of that.
Click to expand...

No, people have made their reasons VERY CLEAR what the issues are, people have higher expectations of Crytek partly because of the work they did in the past and partly because of what they boasted prior to release.

You could bet your ass that people would complain about the graphics in Portal 2 if they came out looking WORSE than the original Portal, because peoples expectations are that iterations of things cause improvements and not the reverse.

Sure, but having (or not) DX11 support clearly does not decide the quality of any game. Or will you disagree in even this very simple point ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't single-handedly decide the quality of the game, however you have to take into account the context of the situation. Peoples expectations differ from game to game based on several factors some of which I've covered. If the game is part of a franchise which is well known for high quality graphics and technology, then taking a relative step backwards is always going to cause controversy. If you boast cutting edge graphics but then don't deliver it's going to cause controversy.

Is Metro 2033 a better game because it has DX11 support ? is Dirt 2 a better game because it has DX11 support ? Is Portal 2 a bad game because it lacks DX11 support ?
Click to expand...

Metro 2033 and Dirt2 are better games compared to themselves without DX11 support, it doesn't make the whole game in every regard better than some other game, that's of course stupid, but objectively they are individually better for using this kind of technology.

Is portal 2 a bad game because it lacks DX11 support, NO it's not, but it's not as good as it could have been had they invested in DX11 technology.

Usually I would say that judging 2 games differently (such as Portal 2 vs Crysis 2) simply isn't fair, but in this case I think it's perfectly fair. Players expectations were simply not met, on a purely relative scale Portal 2 took steps forward where as Crysis 2 took several giant steps backwards. Crysis 2 had hyped graphics in part due to developer dishonesty in their PR.

If it's one thing I've learnt about business it's manage expectations, manage employee expectations and manage customer or business partner expectations. Irrelevant of what is objectively fair, people will bitch and moan if their expectations are not met, right or wrong that's simply how life works. So you have to be real fucking careful when you do something like boast graphical superiority 'cause that's coming back to bite you if you're full of shit.

I said a few posts back that had Crytek come out in their PR and said in no uncertain terms that they would be hindering development of the PC version of the game due to targeting multi-platform, that we'd see step backwards in physics/destructibility, texture resolution, and that'd we have to put up with horrid controls and low FOV then people could simply dismiss the game before it's released, but noooooo not only do they say all that stuff will be fine but they actually boast improvements.

It's a least partly their fault and IMO they deserve all the backlash and negative press they're getting from PC gamers, it's a defence mechanism from the community to discourage bad design and in turn support improvement it keeps the market in a state of improvement and ensures quality, I support that idea 100%
 
Chosen Juan said:
Even at a low resolution like 1680x1050? I see that you're using 2x6970s in CrossFire but you also have an Apple Cinema Display...
Click to expand...

Runs nicely at 1920x1200. It's only at 2560x1600 that frame rates tank on my system. It has something to do with the 2 settings that ULTRA quality objects enable, which are tesselation and parallax occlusion mapping. Although if I think about it now, if it had something to do with tesselation performance, then it should be running slow at the lower res as well. We'll just wait and see if AMD can further optimize performance with a new CAP I suppose.
 
Man, NVIDIA sure has a lot of issues with this DX11/High texture update package, first, the game keeps crashing on me with DX11 enabled, and enabling SLI will result in ugly lower quality textures with jagged edges. Anybody else having this issue as well?

And I tested it on my AMD/ATI rig and does not have any of these issues, except for performance drops but that was expected because I'm using a 1GB 6950 on full settings.
 
I started playing through the SP again last night with the new patch. Dx11 and the various other updates look amazing, especially the volume and the detail of the explosions and the reflections in the environment. The performance is a bit slow at times (so maybe a little tweaking is in order, either in the game or CCC or maybe different drivers).
 
PrincessFrosty said:
snip
Click to expand...

I won't go into multiple quotes, otherwise this will be longer than I want to be :)

You mentioned ONE game that arguably looks better than Crysis 2 and I don't necessarily disagree, although it's tough to compare a game where most of the action happens underground with another where the action occurs mostly outdoors. The outdoors in Metro 2033 are inferior to Crysis 2 outdoors though (even in DX9). Crysis 1 doesn't look better than Crysis 2 (even in DX9 mode). I would say they offer roughly the same graphics fidelity, with Crysis 1 taking a slight lead, although it's not easy to compare given how different the setting is.
The only thing that Crysis 1 has that Crysis 2 didn't from the start, were the high res textures. And even then Crysis 2 had more detail in certain objects, structures, etc, much like Crysis 1 also had crappy textures.
There's the same amount or more destruction in Crysis 2 than there is in Crysis 1 mostly because there are actually more objects that can be destroyed in Crysis 2 than there were in Crysis 1 (this is a city after all with many types of objects not found in the jungle). The only thing that does seem gimped from 1 to 2, are the physics. I have to agree there.

But Crysis 2 WAS indeed superior graphically in its initial form, just not much better than Crysis 1 for the most part, which I guess is what some people expected. Expectation too high IMO, especially when there were so many videos of gameplay showing exactly how the game looked, before it was released.

DX11 does not add much visually and you know it. Tessellation is a nice feature but not having it is not a deal breaker at all. Yes, being the most technologically advanced game out there, would imply that every current/new tech should be used, but they said graphically superior and you should know that DX11 doesn't bring much visually, it's mostly about efficiency.
Just look at the example you gave - Metro 2033 - and look at the game in DX9 vs DX11 with tessellation on. Can you honestly see that big of a difference ? I played the game twice, once with a 8800 GT (so no DX11) and a second time with a GTX 560 Ti in all its glory. Not much can be said in favor of DX11 in this game. It's one degree of eye candy that you won't miss at all, much like Crysis 2 with DX11. The real deal breaker and what makes a difference in these latest patches for Crysis 2 is the high res texture pack. That clearly helps in making Crysis 2 look nicer than it already was.

I don't think they deserve this much flak for the simple reason that they fixed most of the complaints from the first game in the second one. It was a multi-platform game and everyone knew it, so some consolitis factor was expected, but Crytek games were always extremely configurable and Crysis 2 was no different,so some of the problems were easily fixed with simple console commands (that were not disabled like some other companies do - Valve with the FoV command in Portal 2 for example).

You say that I constantly focus on the "no DX11, it sucks" argument, when there are more arguments. Ok, so here's another argument used against the game (albeit not used as much as the DX11 one was), which was "Crysis 2 multiplayer is CoD with a nanosuit". Well let's go through that one too shall we ? Crysis 1 had a very interesting and complex muliplayer. Guess what ? Everyone (with very few exceptions) criticized it. The community was very small and didn't last long. Crytek changed it and made it more similar to one of the most popular multiplayer games. Reaction ? It sucks and Crysis 1 multiplayer was better. So let me get this striaght, when Crysis 1 is out the multiplayer sucks, but when Crysis 2 is out, Crysis 1 multiplayer is suddenly better ? Yeah, makes sense :rolleyes:

The conclusion is that Crytek just can't win:

- They fix the problems from Crysis 1 in Crysis 2 and they suck.
- Crysis 1 was considered to be a tech-demo more than a game, so they focused on gameplay in Crysis 2 more than they did on graphics, and they suck.
- Crysis 1 was graphically intensive, so performance was a killer for most systems, that meant that they sucked because they can't code.
- Crysis 2 is at the same level of graphics fidelity as Crysis 1, but runs wonderfully. Still they suck because it should look much better than a game from 2007.
- They changed what was perceived as a bad multiplayer experience by many, to something similar to one of the most popular online games and they suck.
- Crysis 2 ships without DX11 so they suck, because the game should be the pinnacle of technology usage.
- Crytek releases the DX11 patch for Crysis 2 and they suck because there's not much difference and performance is cut in half.

It doesn't matter what they do. They'll just get flak for it. Hopefully sales justify a Crysis 3, but if based on some "PC Gamers" opinions alone, I would definitely bet that Crysis 3 won't see the light of day on the PC. Or at the very least only be released for the PC many months or even years after the console releases. That's what this whining based on ridiculous arguments will do.
 
John Vuong said:
Man, NVIDIA sure has a lot of issues with this DX11/High texture update package, first, the game keeps crashing on me with DX11 enabled, and enabling SLI will result in ugly lower quality textures with jagged edges. Anybody else having this issue as well?

And I tested it on my AMD/ATI rig and does not have any of these issues, except for performance drops but that was expected because I'm using a 1GB 6950 on full settings.
Click to expand...

Can't comment on SLI performance since I don't have a SLI rig, but my GTX 560 Ti has no problems at all. Not a single crash, although I never had any crash in Crysis 2 (with or without the latest patches).
 
I have only a GTX275 which is DX10 only, but I did install the texture pack and the DX11 patch just for the hell of it.

The game looks and plays amazing maxed out now at 1920 x 1080. Can't estimate the frames, but the game plays better now than before I patched. The textures do seem to make a big difference. The game overall has an extra layer of completeness or polish that it was lacking at launch. Very smooth. I think they hit the right balance of performance and image quality. I'll play this one on my GTX275, and I'll play Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 or whatever the hot card is at that time. It worked out perfectly for me.

I can't think of any other game that delivers sci-fi shooting at this level of quality. The nano-suit is fun and easy to use, the graphics are best in class, the audio and voice acting is silly but entertaining, the musical score is compelling in an action movie type of way. This game is lacking in nothing and I haven't even gotten to DX11 yet. It is simply one of the more compelling games in my library right now.
 
Blackstone said:
I have only a GTX275 which is DX10 only, but I did install the texture pack and the DX11 patch just for the hell of it.

The game looks and plays amazing maxed out now at 1920 x 1080. Can't estimate the frames, but the game plays better now than before I patched. The textures do seem to make a big difference. The game overall has an extra layer of completeness or polish that it was lacking at launch. Very smooth. I think they hit the right balance of performance and image quality. I'll play this one on my GTX275, and I'll play Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 or whatever the hot card is at that time. It worked out perfectly for me.

I can't think of any other game that delivers sci-fi shooting at this level of quality. The nano-suit is fun and easy to use, the graphics are best in class, the audio and voice acting is silly but entertaining, the musical score is compelling in an action movie type of way. This game is lacking in nothing and I haven't even gotten to DX11 yet. It is simply one of the more compelling games in my library right now.
Click to expand...

With the high-res texture pack you're already enjoying 99% of the experience. The additional 1% with DX11 enabled is barely noticeable. In fact, most of it you can only see in still images. In motion there's not much to be gained.
As I described in an earlier post, the only things that are noticeable with DX11 and tessellation on (which apparently has something to do with the Objects setting set to Ultra) are the rubble/cracks on the ground, that are more detailed than they were. But then again, it's the ground...How often do you look at the ground in a fast paced action FPS ?
 
If you're wondering about tessellation performance, try the graphics slider in the ATI control panel, I think the driver can add some kind of tessellation offset to increase or decrease tessellation in games so you could force that on low and see if the frame rate improves. Likely driver optimisation is needed in both camps since there is barely any real world use of tessellation at the moment.

Silus, instead of pointing out where I agree and disagree with you, lets flip this the other way around.

What exactly do you think is the real issue here? We have a developer who made a PC exclusive game which across the course of it's life made them a decent amount of money, while there was a vocal minority of whiners about performance the game was fairly well accepted by the community. Meta critic score of 9.1 user score of 7.8. It was used as THE benchmark for pushing boundaries and testing new hardware for several generations.

They release a sequel and there's a fairly big community backlash, it get's a respectable metacritic score of 8.6 but a lower user score of 6.4. The forums are full of complaints, the game was slayed by people like kyle and generally a lot of negativity.

How can this be if there is no legitimate complaints? How do you explain so many people coming together with common complaints if they aren't actually justified? Is it just random chance that everyone one day decided to hate on Crysis 2.

I just can't get inside your line of thinking here, sure I can agree with you on some points, I've already said if one specific person makes some statements and they're nonsensical or contradictory then by all means quote that person and point out the issue, I'll happily join you in arguing against anyone who is blatently spewing rubbish.

But this sort of "everyone is against Crytek unreasonably" position you seem to be taking (I'm paraphrasing here) just doesn't seem justified, I find it impossible to believe that something can get such harsh backlash unless it actually deserves it. Which is why I found defiant007's video so funny, if you can ignore the insult of it for a minute and actually think about why he posted that link you might better understand our perspective on your argument.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if you put forward some kind of theory to explain why you think everyone is unreasonably hating on Crysis 2, maybe there is a good reason? I think that's a more interesting place to take the discussion.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
How can this be if there is no legitimate complaints? How do you explain so many people coming together with common complaints if they aren't actually justified? Is it just random chance that everyone one day decided to hate on Crysis 2.
Click to expand...

Contrast pages 1-6 from the 'official' Crysis 2 thread with the next 10-15 pages. Middle of page 6 was when the 'choke on a dick' post on HardOCP pointed to the thread.

There were/are legitimate complaints with the game, Yerli's horrible PR skills etc.. There has also been a huge amount of threadcrapping and parroting of others' complaints about Crytek games from C1 to today.

The fish in the [H] barrel are Crytek, Apple and Windows Vista. ;)
 
Chosen Juan said:
Even at a low resolution like 1680x1050? I see that you're using 2x6970s in CrossFire but you also have an Apple Cinema Display...
Click to expand...

I tried the game at 1920 x 1080 and even at that resolution, the frame rates would dip into the 40's. I think I saw it even hit the 30's. I only tried a sampling of the game, so I can't say whether or not the frame rates get even worse in other parts of the game. But for me, frame rates in the 40's is unacceptable. If I'm getting frame rates in the 40's, I doubt that your system will fare much better at your resolution. Btw, the level I tried was Lab Rat, at the very beginning, where you're overlooking the pier and everyone is shooting at you. I just tried it again, and indeed, I saw my frame rates hit the 30's, which is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
addictedto60fps said:
I just tried it again, and indeed, I saw my frame rates hit the 30's, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

This is one reason why Crytek went to consoles. They produce a DX 11 and texture patch and gosh golly, it's demanding on even high-end equipment. The game to me in SP is fine running in the 30 to 40 range, definitely playable.
 
is there someone who can post its benchmark results with a GTX580 SLI?

is this result ok?


crysis2_SLI.png
 
PrincessFrosty said:
snip
Click to expand...

I already explained my take on it. And it's as simple as a large group of people here like to crap on Crytek just for the heck of it or to follow others that crapped on them before.
That is easily seen by the huge amount of people with that "no DX11, I won't buy it" argument. They didn't even try the game itself and are basically ignoring it because of the lack of support for a graphics API. Do you really consider this a valid complaint ?

There was already a clear indication that many people didn't like Crytek with the first Crysis. They made other ridiculous arguments such as "I can't run Crysis at max settings on my 3 year old system. Crytek can't code and Crysis is unoptimized crap!!"
Crysis WARHEAD is released with less taxing settings and runs better, and the reaction was that it sucks because graphics took a step down from the original. The only positive aspect in regards to WARHEAD was that since it didn't delve as much into the "alien world", it was better than the original.

Obviously there are legitimate complaints. I also didn't like the fact that we lost part of the freedom we had in the first game, but I still had fun with the game. And that's what a game is all about. If you want tech-demos go try out the new 3d Mark or whatever benchmark tool is the best right now. The graphics API used argument is moot when judging a game. The only thing that stands out is people expected it to have all the bells and whistles, but DX11 was never promised by Crytek, so it seems to me those that expected those bells and whistles were setting themselves up for disappointment or, as I mentioned before, were just trying to find yet another excuse to bash on Crytek once the game was finally released.

In fact I remember some discussions about PhysX a while back and how "it adds nothing to gameplay, it's only graphical fluff" and so "it shouldn't be taken into consideration when buying a game". Yet with Crysis 2, there are many arguing that DX11 is a game changer and if it doesn't have support for it, then the game is worthless and they won't buy it. Guess graphical fluff is the all important feature after all...Obviously this argument only applies to Crytek games. Every other game developer doesn't get as much flak for not supporting the very best, technologically speaking. There are actually others that are stuck to 2004's technology yet are praised every day...go figure...
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I was wondering when Silus was going to turn this into an anti-Valve thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I did...My post has hundreds of letters/words pertaining to the current context of the discussion, but that last line alone that was used to show how hypocritical people are around here (with the double standards), defines the whole gist of my post...:rolleyes:
 
sblantipodi said:
oops, corrected
crysis2_SLI.png


do you think that this results are normal with a GTX580 SLI?
I have seen better results but can't understand why since my SLI isn't cpu limited.

no one can post the SLI results of this test?
Click to expand...

Where did you get this benchmark tool, I'd be happy to compare my rigs with yours. Seems about right, I get around 40 FPS on my backup rig with a single 480 and an i7-920 @ 3.3Ghz on Ultra. Ultra is too much for my sig rig's VRAM (really and 3GB but will hold out for next gen) so on Extreme at 5760x1080 I'm getting around 50 FPS.
 
Silus said:
Yes, that's exactly what I did...My post has hundreds of letters/words pertaining to the current context of the discussion, but that last line alone that was used to show how hypocritical people are around here (with the double standards), defines the whole gist of my post...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Funny, I never said it defined the gist of your post. It was just inevitable you would bring up that comparison. Whether you feel my post is negative towards your own, or not, is up to you. Just an observation.
 
heatlesssun said:
Where did you get this benchmark tool, I'd be happy to compare my rigs with yours. Seems about right, I get around 40 FPS on my backup rig with a single 480 and an i7-920 @ 3.3Ghz on Ultra. Ultra is too much for my sig rig's VRAM (really and 3GB but will hold out for next gen) so on Extreme at 5760x1080 I'm getting around 50 FPS.
Click to expand...

do this:
=======================================================================================================
Crysis(R) 2
NVidia oaMan Benchmark ReadMe File - June, 2011
=======================================================================================================

This readme file will explain how to setup and run a Crysis 2 benchmark by using NVidia's oaMan tool.

=======================================================================================================
System Requirements
=======================================================================================================

• Crysis 2 installation

• Crysis updated to patch 1.9 (download from http://www.mycrysis.com)


=======================================================================================================
Important Notes
=======================================================================================================

• To get the tool running properly Crysis 2 MUST be installed into a path and directory without any
spaces (e.g. “\My Games – 1\Crysis 2” does NOT work, “\Games\Crysis2” does work)

• To use the benchmark tool please rename the Crysis 2 folder to Crysis2 and change it back to the
original name afterwards if needed


=======================================================================================================
Installation Instructions
=======================================================================================================

01. Download oaMan from: http://developer.nvidia.com/content/oaman-ui-tool
02. Extract the oaman.zip file into a directory on your HDD
03. Start the oaman.exe
04. Click on Application > Add OA Application
05. Navigate to the Crysis2.exe which is located inside \Bin32 of your Crysis 2 installation
06. Leave the “Command Line arguments” window empty and click “OK”
07. oaMan output in the Log should be:
GetOaAppInfo : Getting benchmark information of application [Crysis2.exe]
getInfoThread : Start getting application information
08. Crysis 2 should start and close itself again and the log should say:
getInfoThread : Benchmark [] | [benchmark.cfg] found
Add benchmark [benchmark] to application list
getInfoThread : Exit Successfully
GetOaAppInfo : Successfully get benchmark information
09. Right click on Crysis2.exe in the Application List and select “Add to benchmark list”
10. Make your custom settings for the benchmark via the available options for Crysis2.exe and the
respective benchmark
11. The game should now appear in the Benchmark List on the right side
12. To start the benchmark click on Benchmarks menu point > Run benchmarks > Run all benchmarks
13. The benchmark will now start
14. Once the benchmark is done you can save your results by clicking on the menu point
Benchmarks > Save results
15. You will also see the Avg (Average), Min (Minimum) and Max (Maximum) FPS (Frames Per Second) in
the Benchmark List next to the benchmark you have just run


=======================================================================================================
Tipps & Tricks
=======================================================================================================

You can have multiple benchmarks for Crysis 2 added to the Benchmark list – just repeat step 9 and
customize the benchmark setting afterwards.

It is also possible to run any set of benchmarks by multi-selecting them from the list.


=======================================================================================================
End of ReadMe File.
=============================================================================================
 
heatlesssun said:
This is one reason why Crytek went to consoles. They produce a DX 11 and texture patch and gosh golly, it's demanding on even high-end equipment. The game to me in SP is fine running in the 30 to 40 range, definitely playable.
Click to expand...

I remember playing C1 @ 25fps the whole game maxed and enjoyed it.

The most demanding game on PC will not yield 60fps with a single and sometimes dual video cards. That person is doing it wrong. Even though mid-range users can turn down the settings, they still want to see if their PC can hang with the big boys. Then complain that it can't
Anything over 30fps in SP is fine for any game. 60fps is too expensive on the PC to achieve with every game.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Anything over 30fps in SP is fine for any game. 60fps is too expensive on the PC to achieve with every game.
Click to expand...

Sometimes 60FPS isn't even possible, no matter how much you spend. Crysis 2 in DX 11 Ultra isn't going to run at 60FPS on probably even a 4x SLI 580 3GB setup at 7680x1600.
 
Game is unplayable with system in sig, after patching to 1.9, then patching DX11, then HiRes pack

Game seems to run smoothly, but every 2 seconds or so, moving the camera around with my mouse just drops to about 2-3fps, then moves smoothly, then ...rinse repeat.

Disabling DX11 in-game fixes this. Any ideas?

Running the game at 1920x1080, Ultra, Hi Res textures, 16xAF

Edit: Ran the game in a window, so I can monitor CCC & my GPU usage on each card in crossfire

Long story short: GPU 1 is only running at 53%. GPU 2 isn't even turning on, and I have Crossfire enabled. GG AMD.

Edit 2: I guess Crossfire doesn't work if you're playing in a window, so I can't see what GPU usage is on GPU 2 while I'm actually in-game, but I'd assume it's similar to the 53% of the first one
Edit 3: Running GPU-Z (two instances, one for each GPU) and they're showing less than 40% usage for each card, 33% for GPU 2.. so the scaling doesn't seem right, but idk.. game runs horrible though
 
Last edited:
Is Crysis 2 crashing to black with DX11 enabled using a Nvidia card? I've been having this problem since last night.

Possible Solution:
Nvidia Control Panel, "Manage 3D Settings", put Power management mode on "Prefer maximun performance" .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvIViG43Z6M"]YouTube - ‪Crysis 2 - Patch 1.9 DX11 CRASH - BLACK SCREEN (SOLVED)‬‏[/ame]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top